- 4,404
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
Thats the first problem right off the bat. There is really no excuse for that, in a film about South African apartheid, how can there not be asingle black character of depth? They surely found enough time to sketch out the barbaric Nigerian gang leader. They couldn't put even 1 worthwhile blackcharacter in the entire movie? Just 1? I'm not even suggesting that he take a lead role because we all know the nature of Hollywood but Fundiswacouldn't at least have been Wikus's equal? We couldn't see him display a shred of intelligence or family life? He couldn't whisper something inWikus's ear one time to show some type of ability and independent brain function? Wikus was a bumbling idiot before the transformation and Fundiswa waseven more inept.Originally Posted by Wade187
how do you not see that this particular film did not have any black characters who were even around the main character enough to be complex?
Although he was the complete opposite of the stereotypical africans depicted in the rest of the movie you still found a reason to basically say he doesn't count.
Was he really a complete opposite?
He was just another one-dimensional, stereotypical black caricature.
He assisted in the persecution and he was also one of the stupidest characters in the entire movie. Its not even like he used skill to uncover to MNU'sfile as he explicitly states "They didn't even do a good job of hiding it...."
He counts in the ranks of the mindless black masses portrayed in this film.
All I am asking for is 1 smart, noble black character....just 1....if y'all can't present that yet in a tale about African Apartheid...something is up.
You saw the blacks as being more savage, but I saw it as them being the stereo typical un educated, voo doo believing african gangsters.
And that is somehow different than a savage?
You're making my point for me.
Usually this would make for clear racism, but on the other hand we had the stereo typical power hungry whites, who would destroy anyone and anything in there path including one of their own for what they desired.
The whites were portrayed in a negative light but the protagonist was white and beautifully human. He went through all types of change, displayedcomplex emotion and thought. He was brave, he was selfless, he loved, he fought back, we saw his bond with his beautiful loyal wife. He was a human being.
Where was the 1 black character that displayed anything worthwhile in this film..this is what I ask?
Even his evil father in law...he was evil, yet smart. He was a fleshed out human, albeit a predictable and nefarious one.
Where was the one black person that displayed that in the movie?....Just 1?
The aide workers, professionals and Wikus's family even in their brief cameos they displayed emotion...rational thought....where was the one black personthat did that? Just 1?
I cited the instances that black people were interviewed and you have yet to refute that...they were always the enactors of prejudice or crime. While whiteswere offering a helping hand and analyzing commentary.
Just about everything was offensive in the movie towards everyone, and that was the point.
Again I pose this situation. If this same movie revolved around Jewish persecution in World War 2...do you think it would be appropriate to have agroup of Polish jews, who did nothing but steal, kill, prostitute, drink blood in occult rituals and scam?
Would it be cool to not have 1 jewish character with a brain or a heart?
Would that even make sense ?...Don't think so.
Then how is it that the true victims of this human tragedy are portrayed in such an unflattering light and everyone seems to be cool with it?